In Gordon v. Butler, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the payments she was promised.

In Gordon v. Butler, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a probate court in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have such authority and reversed the decision of the lower courts. Justice Field dissented, arguing that there is no constitutional provision prohibiting states from exercising jurisdiction over cases originating outside their borders. He further argued that it would be unfair for litigants who are unable to bring suit in their own home states due to lack of resources or other reasons to be denied access to justice altogether simply because they reside elsewhere. In conclusion, he maintained that if two parties agree on which forum should decide their dispute then it should be respected by all courts involved regardless of where those parties live or come from originally.